BioRex said:
When did I say I'm telling the chef what they can or cannot do? When did I say that?
Logically your stance in the analogy, is that you don't want the chef to change the spicy dish, and others are pressuring him to change it. You claim you don't want the chef to be pressured to change, so how do you intend to do that without becoming an advocate against change?
Keeping in mind, by arguing against change at all, you are in fact, pressuring the chef with what you want, even if it falls in with what he's already doing.
If there's no argument, there's no pressure. You can't have it both ways.
Also I'm sorry but someone said "It's pretentious to presume that your preference is objective fact, and that everyone else who doesn't conform is "wrong"."
So your saying that the presumption that your preference (easy mode=better) is objective fact, and that everyone else who doesn't conform is "wrong", is not pretentious?
Yes. It works both ways in the most general sense.
If people were arguing that Dark Souls shouldn't include a Hard Mode because it's meant to be Easy, despite already having an Easy mode, then it'd be pretentious because they're advocating that people should play it the way THEY want to play it and ONLY that way. (even when that isn't their right)
By advocating for both modes, you lose the context of prevention, and that prevention is the reason it's pretentious (not the method of advocacy itself). If there were an element of loss for one party at the expense of another, then you might make the argument both were pretentious, but seeing how Hard Mode is UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY PRESERVED IN THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT, that logically cannot happen.
They are MODES, MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE MODES, and one of them is being added to an existing, finished product (Dark Souls).
Unless you magic some method where the two modes can cross (and you CAN'T), there is no logical argument against inclusion of an easier mode. (there was one suggested, but I'm getting to that)
All that supposition about diverting focus, time, etc, is exactly that. Supposition and a Slippery Slope Fallacy, because it can be applied to literally any element of the game you can think of, not just Easy Mode.
I'm sorry if that wasn't clear before, but that is my current and refined argument.
If I made a mistake in transcribing that before, I admit it here.
(I do not argue this for Dark Souls 2; that was just announced and it's fair game for anyone's speculation)
Or would you be ok with me demanding that developer spend time and money to heavily alter a game to put in a hard mode? And they would indeed have to alter a game if it was not intended for a hard mode and was not designed to work with a hard mode.
You say it cannot be adjusted to be easier, but you have yet to prove why this is true.
Burden of Proof is on you.
Rooster Cogburn said:
I think there are enough games in the world that we can all have the one that is right for us. No one film is for all audiences, and no audience is for all films. That is OK, and we are all better off for it in the end.
The most sensible argument yet, but I still don't see how adding an Easy Mode to an existing product will hurt it or influence your tastes/experience in any way.
If your fear is that future Dark Souls games will get dumbed down, I can see that. It's happened to a lot of games I used to play, and entire genres. And you know what? I whined. I whined like a broken motor, petitioned, emailed, and in the end I got nothing.
So with no other logical option, I look for alternatives.
On the matter of a lack of choice enhancing response...sorry, but I don't buy that.
I played IWannaBetheGuy on the second highest difficulty, and never once did the existence of other easier modes inhibit my desire to improve or ruin my fun. And that's a game where your choice of difficulty makes a HUGE fucking difference. HUGE.
Also, MegamanX6 was a game I needed modal difficulty to get into, because it was soul-crushingly difficult in a lot of places.